Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36780905›Full record

ArticlePhysiological reports2023

Tilt perception is different in the pitch and roll planes in human.

Dimitri Keriven Serpollet, David Hartnagel, Yannick James, Stéphane Buffat, Nicolas Vayatis, Ioannis Bargiotas, Pierre-Paul Vidal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Dimitri Keriven SerpolletTraining & Simulation, Thales AVS France SAS, Osny, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2750-9002
David HartnagelDépartement Neurosciences et Sciences Cognitives, Institut de Recherche Biomédicale des Armées, Brétigny-sur-Orge, France.
Yannick JamesTraining & Simulation, Thales AVS France SAS, Osny, France.
Stéphane BuffatLaboratoire d'Accidentologie de Biomécanique et du comportement des conducteurs, GIE Renault-PSA Groupes, Nanterre, France.
Nicolas VayatisCentre Borelli, Université de Paris, ENS Paris-Saclay, CNRS, SSA, Paris, France.
Ioannis BargiotasCentre Borelli, Université de Paris, ENS Paris-Saclay, CNRS, SSA, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1069-1293
Pierre-Paul VidalCentre Borelli, Université de Paris, ENS Paris-Saclay, CNRS, SSA, Paris, France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRLaboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives · FRRenault (France) · FRThales (France) · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurophysiological tests probing the vestibulo-ocular, colic and spinal pathways are the gold standard to evaluate the vestibular system in clinics. In contrast, vestibular perception is rarely tested despite its potential usefulness in professional training and for the longitudinal follow-up of professionals dealing with complex man-machine interfaces, such as aircraft pilots. This is explored here using a helicopter flight simulator to probe the vestibular perception of pilots. The vestibular perception of nine professional helicopter pilots was tested using a full flight helicopter simulator. The cabin was tilted six times in roll and six times in pitch (-15°, -10°, -5°, 5°, 10° and 15°) while the pilots had no visual cue. The velocities of the outbound displacement of the cabin were kept below the threshold of the semicircular canal perception. After the completion of each movement, the pilots were asked to put the cabin back in the horizontal plane (still without visual cues). The order of the 12 trials was randomized with two additional control trials where the cabin stayed in the horizontal plane but rotated in yaw (-10° and +10°). Pilots were significantly more precise in roll (average error in roll: 1.15 ± 0.67°) than in pitch (average error in pitch: 2.89 ± 1.06°) (Wilcoxon signed-rank test: p < 0.01). However, we did not find a significant difference either between left and right roll tilts (p = 0.51) or between forward and backward pitch tilts (p = 0.59). Furthermore, we found that the accuracies were significantly biased with respect to the initial tilt. The greater the initial tilt was, the less precise the pilots were, although maintaining the direction of the tilt, meaning that the error can be expressed as a vestibular error gain in the ability to perceive the modification in the orientation. This significant result was found in both roll (Friedman test: p < 0.01) and pitch (p < 0.001). However, the pitch trend error was more prominent (gain = 0.77 vs gain = 0.93) than roll. This study is a first step in the determination of the perceptive-motor profile of pilots, which could be of major use for their training and their longitudinal follow-up. A similar protocol may also be useful in clinics to monitor the aging process of the otolith system with a simplified testing device.

Indexed as

Vestibule, LabyrinthEyeHumansMovementPerceptionSemicircular Canalsfull flight simulatormotion perceptionotolithsperceptual thresholdpilotsemicircular canalvestibular perception

Identifiers

PMID36780905
PMCPMC9925277
OpenAlexW4320483181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.